The Independent today reports some more on the fact that Anders Breivik, the Norwegian terrorist, had ‘connections’ to the EDL and that Searchlight's Nick Lowles is going to ‘release further information today’ about those links.
Of course Anders Breivik would have been impressed and interested in the success and actions of the EDL. He sees himself as a patriot who is fighting against further Islamisation in Norway and beyond. He has clearly recognised the destructive effects of extreme multiculturalism. He is also fully aware of the naive and suicidal nature of Norway’s Islamophile policies and, ultimately, of Europe’s increasing Dhimmitude.
Every movement or ideology has its extremes. Take the Conservative Party in the 1960s and 1970s. It too was associated with vaguely fascist or extreme right-wing groups, such as the Monday Club and the National Front. There will always a murky area between a movement or ideology and extremist interpretations of that movement or ideology. Many members of the Labour Party, and even MPs themselves, along with mainstream trade unions, have very close relations to the Socialist Workers Party and other Marxist groups. The Trotskyist Unite Against Fascism once even claimed David Cameron as a ‘signatory’ on their website. So all movements and ideologies have their extremes; perhaps even the Lib-Dems.
Breivik may even have gone on an EDL demo in 2010, as has been suggested. But in law, as elsewhere, there shouldn’t be any guilt by mere association. The EDL should not be tarnished by the basic fact that Breivik mentions the EDL in his ‘manifesto’. As the EDL official statement on Breivik has made clear, Breivik simply admired the popularity of the EDL along within its fantastically quick rise to political prominence. As someone who saw himself as a person who wanted to protect European culture from Islamification, he was probably quite jealous of the EDL’s popularity and political effectiveness. But he also explicitly says that he is fundamentally at odds with the EDL’s ‘anti-racism’ and ‘anti-Nazism’. He has made it crystal clear that he is ideologically at odds with the EDL; despite having certain connections to the movement.
If Nick Lowles
is desperate to make more of these connections than are warranted, then that simply shows us how desperate he is when faced with the increased scepticism and anger towards the extreme experiments in multiculturalism and, affectively, of Islamisation in Europe. ‘Cultural Marxism’ is indeed under attack from those on the Right and the centre. And because Nick Lowles knows this, he is desperate to make something - a lot - of Breivik’s ideological connections to the EDL.
But let’s ask a simple question:
What, precisely, is Nick Lowles trying to say with his ‘further information’ about the links between Breivik and the EDL?
Is Lowles a shameful opportunist trying to make a connection between right-wing terrorism and the EDL? What’s the point that Lowles is trying to make? Is he trying to argue that scepticism about mass immigration, multiculturalism and Islamisation will inevitably lead to the kind of atrocities which Breivik committed?
The EDL is against every kind of terrorism; whether carried by European Nazi groups, by Hamas or by Jewish groups. Let’s not forget that in the early 1970s, late 1960s, it was the Far Left that frequently indulged in terrorism
and even in kidnap and assassination (e.g., the Red Army Faction, the Red Brigade, the Weathermen, the Black Panthers, etc.). So are we now allowed to posit links between, say, Dennis Skinner or Tony Benn, or their equivalents in the early 1970s, and the dangerous ideological views and actions of these far-left terrorists?
The ironic thing is that Nick Lowles, along with UAF/SWP, basically want an outright ban, Stalin-style, on the EDL. Now if many people are denied the legitimate democratic right to protest against extreme multiculturalism and Islamisation (or sharia-isation), what do you think a small minority of those angry people will do? They will go underground. They may even express their political views in violence, arson, and ultimately, even in terrorism. This is not blackmail of the Islamist/Leftist kind which argues, say, that if we don’t withdraw from Afghanistan, or reverse the ban on the burqa in Belgium, then there will be acts of Islamic terrorism. I am not saying: Don’t ban the EDL... Or else! I am saying that if the EDL is banned these things will happen. When many people are denied their legitimate political rights, many of them will quickly become desperate and angry. The Islamic case is not parallel to this. Islamist blackmail is asking for huge geopolitical changes and the complete cultural accommodation of Islamic belief and action, not the simple right to protest or belong to a legitimate political organisation.
Besides which, if the EDL isn’t banned or prevented from protesting, then things should carry pretty much as they were. However, since the Islamic Jihad has been going on for 1, 300 years, it will not suddenly end after, say, a withdrawal from Afghanistan, or Iraq, or after the annihilation of the state of Israel. New Islamist demands will continuously arise. After all, many Islamic radicals, as well as more mainstream Islamists, believe that India is also ‘occupied territory’. Actually, they think that of Spain (or Andalusia) too.
The bottom line is, then, that Nick Lowles's various Stalinist attempts to ban the EDL outright
will make things a hell of a lot worse. And he won’t be able to make use of gulags. But he may well be smugly pleased about the increasingly draconian sentences and banning orders which are being handed down to various members of the EDL - including its leader.
Nick Lowles's penchant for Stalinist measures against the EDL, and against all the many others who don't embrace the diversity that is multiculturalist fundamentalism, may bring about the kind of revolutionary situation that Communists like Lowles thrive on. Despite that, the British public has always been deeply suspicious of far-left ideologues like Lowles. They will not buy into his fear and hatred of freedom nor into his anti-democratic stance against the EDL.